One Key Step to Bridge Political Divides: Forget the word "evil"

Evil is a strong word.

When I think of evil acts, people, or events, I think of moments in history that were so horrifying that descriptions like ‘wrong,’ ‘bad,’ or ‘inappropriate’ fail to convey the suffering and cruelty experienced. ‘Evil’ stands as the closest description we have to capture these moments when the humanity of the evil-doer can’t be found; when the good of the world has been overshadowed by loss and pain of the victims. The word used to be used sparingly. Today, however, the word ‘evil’ seems to have become another adjective for people who disagree with us.

I polled my LinkedIn network, just this week, asking how many people in this world could be described as evil. The options were under 1%, 2-24%, 25-49%, or 50% or more. The results came out as many would have expected:

1% or fewer: 42%

2-24%: 48%

25-49%: 3%

50% or more: 6%

This spread looks quite optimistic at first glance. Almost everyone saw their fellow humans as qualifying for the description of “evil” up to 24% of the time. Now, 2-24% is a large spectrum, so many could have been leaning heavily on one side or the other of the spectrum. No matter where we land however, I realized, when having this conversation with a colleague, that two variables would impact people’s answers. First, when they were set to the task of defining “evil.” Second, putting these percentages into actual people caused many folks to shift their answer. So let’s work this out here, and see if your answer shifts in any way. At the end, we’ll look at what this might mean. First, let’s look at defining “evil.”

For the sake of this article, we will use the definition my discussions developed:

Evil:?antisocial acts with moral significance that cannot be captured by terms such as “wrong,” “bad,” or “inappropriate.” Perpetual and/or systematic cruelty. (Cruelty: willfully causing pain or suffering to others or feeling no concern about it.)

?So, using this definition, look at the 4 options from the poll again. What percentage of people in this world are perpetually cruel; performing antisocial acts with moral significance unable to be captured by any other word?

Keep that definition in mind as we shift from percentage to actual numbers.

For this, let’s use two scenarios. And since I’m a proud Minnesotan, we’ll use U.S. Bank stadium (go Vikes) and a shopping trip to Target.

The capacity of U.S. Bank stadium is 73,000. Average attendance during non-COVID times is between 66,000 and 67,000. This means that, if 24% of the world is evil, I would look around myself and be able to look in the faces of 16,000 evil people. Let’s say that the 48% of respondents were leaning closer to the 2% side of that answer. This would give us a little over 1,300 individuals at the game. 1,300 individuals perpetually causing suffering to others because they want to. Does this number still seem reasonable?

Let’s take a smaller and more common situation: The often-enjoyed trip to Target. Target states that the average number of visitors to the 1,900 target stores is 2 million. Split evenly, we see just over 1,050 visitors per store. Any given hour, there is an average 85 visitors in the average Target store. Using our expectation that 24% of people are evil, that would mean that there are 20 evil people shopping with you at Target. 20 evil people picking out towels. 20 evil people checking if the avocados are ripe. On the 2% end of the answer 48% of respondents chose, this means that 1-2 people you pass by on your run to get eggs would qualify for the definition of evil.

The most common answer I received after putting that percentage into context and requiring us to truly define the word was, “Oh. Well, when you put it that way, I would change my answer.”

Whether it’s a public meeting or a conversation at the local coffee shop, people have become very polarized when it comes to the important issues of the day.?Relationships with friends and family have been strained or even cut off because of where someone stands politically. We attempt to enter this mix with a hope of helping, only to become frustrated at the level of emotion and vitriol. How did it come to this, and more importantly, how can we help people get out of this spin cycle?

So, what does this all mean? Are we pessimistic, mistrustful people? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, in fact. I know this because when we are given additional context our answers become increasingly thoughtful.

Very few people get up in the morning wondering, “How can I make the world a worse place today than it was yesterday?”?Most people, most of the time are doing what they believe is best.?Of course, people do things that are not kind, ethical, or productive.?However, they generally do so not out of malicious intent, but out of a misguided attempt to solve a problem or because they are having a bad day; they do so for some other reason that is NOT that they are a terrible person with horrible motives.?It's extremely common for people in conflict to decide that the other is up to no good.?When groups make the shift to giving each other the benefit of the doubt, they arrive at mutually beneficial solutions more quickly.?

What this means is that we would be exceedingly wise to practice self-awareness. To recognize that we are built to make snap decisions. And while these snap decisions can be incredibly helpful, even lifesaving at times (See Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink), in circumstances of variability and nuance like human personality, we can make significant errors in judgement. Instead, we need to slow down our thought process and consider what’s before us. Even how the information is presented can shift our final judgement.

This era of limitless information at the tap of a finger, there is an immense opportunity to learn and grow. However, few of us have been taught how to separate fact from opinion; especially when the sources of the information don’t let on which is being discussed. As we desperately look for the answers to our questions and concerns, we quickly become confused about who to believe. Our human need for answers, along with our fundamental needs of belonging and safety, motivate us to rely on the opinion of those with whom we identify. We listen to opinions and analysis from experts who share our worldview and only look to the “opposing side” to confirm our belief that our opinion is right. “How could they believe that?” we say as we read the arguments of our family and friends on social media.

This experience has become a cycle and has spurred on the toxic polarization we find ourselves in today. Political opinion has become moral imperatives and dissenting opinion holders are now evil rather than people with differing perspectives. During a recent conversation with a close friend, they said, “I’ve lost hope we can ever recover from our current political climate.” Sadly, they aren’t alone in this sense of hopelessness.

The good news is that new ideas are emerging on how to better handle and hopefully ‘bridge’ these divides. To do that, we need to recognize the humanity of those who disagree with us. We need to remove the word ‘evil’ from our description of opposing viewpoints so that we are forced to recognize the intrinsic good in the vast majority of humanity.

This isn’t a quick process. It took us decades to get up to the slippery slope that has brought this polarity. A thoughtful process that starts small with shared values can carefully grow to talk about tougher challenges. Once you get to know them as more than only a political opponent, you can start to better appreciate that considering different views may actually create a broader and more durable set of possible solutions.